THE WESTPORT MURDER.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 458, 20 May 1909, Page 3

THE WESTPORT MURDER.

Christchurch, May 17. The tiial of William Connolly, charged with the murder of Ernest John Burke at Westport on the night of May 8, 1908, commenced in the Supreme Court on Monday morning. Mr T. W. Stringer, K.C., for the Crown, in a lengthy and exhaustive opening speech, set out the facts as follows: —Burke was found in a dying condition in a stable yard. Olaf Halinan and Andrew Anderson, two seamen, were charged with having caused his death and were convicted. While in gaol Halinan died. Subsequently Connolly, who had been a witness in the trial, was charged with having committed perjury in the case and was convicted on this charge. Anderson was pardoned and released. Connolly was now charged with having committed the murder, Mr A. C. Hanlon, of. Dunedin, is appearing for the defence.

Mr Stringer, in opening his case, laid stress on Connolly’s confession at Hokitika last September after he was found guilty of perjury, the said perjury} being statements by Connolly implicating Hallinan and Anderson as having been the perpetrators of the deed. Connolly, in his confession, had stated that he alone killed and robbed Burke, and that Hallinan and Anderson were innocent men. The only possible defence was that the confession was an untrue and a false confession, but the case for the Crown was fairly simple. Apart from Connolly’s confession he intended to lead strong circumstantial evidence to show that Connelly, was the man who did the deed. This evidence alone would point with an almost unerring finger to Connelly as the man implicated, whether alone or with others, whilst the confession, unless the effect thereof were removed from the jury’s mind, would make the conclusion irresistible. The evidence given by Julius Shaddick, licensed surveyor, of Westport, dealt with distances between hotels and the shed where Burke’s body was found. William Murray, who was with Connolly on the night of the murder, gave evidence as to Connolly’s movements.

The witness was subjected to a searching cross-examination, the object of which was to create doubts as to the limes at which witness stated certain things occurred. Witness stated that several remarks made by him to Detective Mcllveney at Westport were wrongly recorded. Mr Hanlon: The detective wrote down something and read out something different ?

Witness: Yes, there are two or three things different. The witness afterwards stated that the detective must have misunderstood what he said.

Mary Bowring, barmaid at the Q.C.E. Hotel, whence Connelly and Burke went out on the night of the murder, in cross-examina-tion, did not support some of the evidence of Murray.

Elizabeth Ayers, licensee of the hotel, said she had told Burke to go to his lodgings, and Connolly undertook to take him.

Johanna Phillips said she had seen a short man and a tall man, who limped, go towards MaclaugJilin's shed, whence she heard sounds as of someone falling and someone groaning. She saw neither come out.

Cross-examined closely as to why she had not come forward earlier with this evidence, the witness stated she was in ill-health and was afraid she would be unable to go through the trial. She denied being offered £ls, or any money, if she gave evidence. Hugh Duncan and Constable Keenan gave evidence regarding the - finding of the body. The statement of the first-named regarding the finding of footmarks leading from the middle of the shed to a gate at the 'back of the shed was discounted by the crossexamination of Keenan, who stated that he and another constable made a careful search before Duncan was on the scene, and saw no footmarks. ■ Keenan, in cross-examination, also stated that he was accosted by a man when he was taking Connelly to gaol for having broken a window. The man asked him to let Connelly go, as his steamer was leaving at 2 o’clock in the morning. This man, witness afterwards learned, was Hallinan.